Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Ti with ex-Ne considered

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Ti with ex-Ne considered

    We'll be considering all four forms: -Ti:-Ne, -Ti:+Ne, +Ti:+Ne, and +Ti:-Ne.

    For reference, exertion +Ne is personal choice, the realization of a potential within the self. exertion -Ne is that which is, the sum total of all realized potential beyond the immediate self. -Ti in this instance is the immediate effect of choice. +Ti is the logic which governs choice.

    Well will consider first -Ti:-Ne.

    All logical conclusions made by INTjs are reached by methodically disproving each and every alternative to the conclusion. Therefore, let us disprove the alternatives to what we believe -Ti:-Ne to be, the practical consequence of limited options. If the options were unlimited, and anything were possible, then indeed anything would be practical. Principle could pop up out of thin air, all you would need would be to realize the possibility; it is after all, the limitation of developed imagination which delineates the boundary between eternal principle and logical inconsistency.

    But why are things impossible? The answer is that anything is indeed possible, but some possibilities are impossible to realize. The reason for this becomes clear when we consider that realization is use of energy, and that to realize something a choice between potentials intrinsic to the object must be made. Let us first liberate ourselves from the notion that only human have choice: when a potential is realized over another potential, then it was the choice of the environment that the one potential was realized over the others. There my be a better word than "choice" for what we are attempting to describe, but the point is that human choice is only a realization of subjective potential (+Ne). But we shall come back to this notion: the observation of how choice is actually made -- on basis of subjective motivation contrasted with objective motivation -- will illuminate the situation further.

    It is the political dimension of reality which determines possibility vs impossibility: if a change is not permitted by the static situation, then it is unrealizable; for change must be built on that which is already there energy-wise, or the energetic situation will not permit it to happen. The energies which might have been organized around the change will instead be caught up in the more organized forces around them, and their will extinguished. The organized forces are such because they are anchored on that which is enduring. For a change in consciousness to happen, there must be a set of conserved notions upon which each change is advanced, elsewise one never quite makes it from point A to hypothetical point B. (for example, Nietzche never managed to explain to conservatives why "God is dead" because he could not explain the consistency of his logic, and thus conservatives never accepted his ideas: the change in human consciousness he desired never wholly manifested. God is dead, itself represents a half-truth: something not untrue, yet not completely true either). Similarly, a new technique that is propagated without respect to natural law will be swallowed up by more efficient techniques which do respect them, even if the new technique is intended as an improvement upon existing technique. The reason these changes fail is because they attempt to improve upon the state or condition of their predecessors without observing that they are themselves grounded upon the predecessor. Like the Gnostic demiurge, they are ignorant of their own origins. We conclude thus that as surely as we have embraced ignorance ourselves in the past, there was an energy which substantiated that ignorance in our brains. Energy, we observe, can thus itself be ignorant.

    Ignorant energy -- that energy which is misdirected due to its desire to follow the pathway of least immediate resistance (think of the movement of water on basis of concentration) -- may face dispersion against other energies which have been channeled also to the pathway of least resistance, but deliberately and in accordance with an existing framework. Ignorance is two-sided: just as a change cannot be completed without first channeling the present situation (at least in part), so too can a present technique or mode of consciousness expect to be surpassed by those techniques and considerations which are built by expounding upon reasonings of similar validity and efficiency: if a present energetic processor does not expand itself to include those new developments which are better than it, then it will be eclipsed by evolution. Like the company which stays true to old products and services in the face of superiority by , or the political establishment which is defeated by bold new ideas, inferior systems of action are beaten in the search for dualism and conquered. Consensus -- the way of optimal return given the present situation -- is the final arbiter.

    Thus we can say that manifest principle is only -Ti:-Ne acting in ignorance, and that a whole perspective of -Ti:-Ne observes it as distinguishing manifest principle itself to be impossible (because it is ideas that are ignorant of their origin), as opposed to conserved principle which is possible. We thus reach a definition of -Ti:-Ne that is fundamentally sound: the effect of choices which are realizable at all. We additionally observe that another meaning of this is, that which is logical is that which is possible to achieve, and the set of all choices have a common relationship of determining, to the extent that they do not cancel each other out energy-wise (by overcoming each other), what connections between objects exist. This makes sense if you consider, if one object's energy is going to stifle the expression of another object's energy, then that expression cannot be an observable part of relation between the two objects, because it has been suppressed and therefore, has no effect.

  2. #2
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    K. Interesting perspective, but like I've said before this (Ne+ as choice) is not in line with my findings. I maintain that any "Empowering" function signifies an aspect of a situation that is being considered in which a person has the freedom to range over multiple options. Furthermore:

    Accepting/Static/Empowering: choice of ends (= autonomy, agency; choices that lead to totally new places, yet have a very high failure chance)
    Creating/Dynamic/Empowering: choice of means (manifests as flair, erudition, extreme skill; making choices that one KNOWS are right)

    Accepting Ne is one of the functions of autonomous choice, I will give you that...

    However, accepting Se is all about making a choice to go to a situation of which one knows all the details; that is, one that one has seen before. Accepting Ne would be the creation of a new situation altogether. There is a greater degree of freedom in the latter... Maybe you're not too far off the mark.
    Last edited by krieger; 09-01-2008 at 02:56 PM.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    When it comes to duality, you are the expert.

    As usual it'll take some reading (and re-reading) to take in your comments fully, but I think I get the gist of them. Glad you approve. I agree that Ne and Se both represent choice, but Se I think comes after Ne in that regard. Ne releases the potential (actualizes the choice) and Se puts the choice into motion, into force. The Se can appear only after the choice has been actualized, and is at, it would seem, the discretion of the choice maker.

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I see Accepting Ti as a function of choice aswell... Both in the master and in the slave type.

    A typical Accepting Ti argument is of the format "yes, but I can just take [this] position".

    For example, the scepticism of René Descartes: my senses tell me there is an apple in front of me, but I can just take the position that my senses are deceiving me. I can even take the position that an evil god forces me to think there is an apple!

    Does this make sense from your perspective?

    Btw: if it wasn't clear, when I speak of Empowering and Limiting I mean the following:

    Empowering (choice): Accepting Ti, Accepting Fi, Accepting Ne, Accepting Se, Creating Te, Creating Fe, Creating Ni, Creating Si
    Limiting (necessity/limitation): Accepting Te, Accepting Fe, Accepting Ni, Accepting Si, Creating Ti, Creating Fi, Creating Ne, Creating Se

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •